Google Blogoscoped

Forum

A question for Philipp: delta

milivella [PersonRank 10]

Saturday, November 22, 2008
15 years ago4,431 views

Philipp, you sometimes refer to "delta" ("information delta", "knowledge delta"):
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2005-11-23-n59.html
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-02-25-n19.html
http://blogoscoped.com/forum/130770.html#id130819

I feel like there is something in your mind about this concept. If so, please share with us: what is "delta" in your weltanschauung?

Of course, I could be mistaken, and you only mean "difference".

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

In these cases I mean the delta (the difference) between what you knew yesterday and what you know today, or what you knew before seeing something/ receiving something and what you know afterwards, or what potential difference something holds for you because of the distance in the point of view. A whole lot of things we're exposed to try to minimize that delta for us, but I think it's often best if we seek to increase this delta in our lives. It may not be always comfortable but can cause progress. Psychology seems to call the feeling of uncomfort "cognitive dissonance": when you're exposed to something that challenges what you were holding to be true. Colliisions that throw your brain into chaos forcing you to work on reordering things!

In groups, the "knowledge difference" or perspective difference between individual members can also be important to avoid "groupthink." In a way groupthink tries to avoid cognitive dissonance in the "group brain." An example of groupthink might have been the Chernobyl disaster. Wikipedia says:

<<Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.>>

Oftentimes, I feel mainstream media tries to portray an incredibly narrow difference in opinions as a red herring to avoid us looking beyond this. http://blogoscoped.com/discussion/

Here's some example strategies that could help to "increase the information delta":
- if you're creating websites, then it can be refreshing to talk to a person who never used the internet (as opposed to, say, reading Techmeme)
- if you're trying to ponder the future it can be interesting to look deep into the past, to escape today and analyze things in broader perspective
- if you're right handed, your brain might spark new inspirations if you try to do things with your left hand for a while, and so on.
- if you assemble a group to create something together, you could look for diversity so each member adds their skills (instead of creating redundant skill sets)
- avoid lots of TV, avoid defending your point of view instead of understanding others, avoid too much mainstream media, avoid to seek only people or sources who hold your opinions, avoid believing you know everything already...
- try to sit through to something you dislike, or don't understand

Because I can offer only one perspective the best thing would be to ask many other people for strategies I guess! What would you think your strategies would be?

milivella [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

First of all, thanks for the reply, that is very interesting and mind-stimulating.

> delta = the difference between what you knew yesterday and what you know today

So defined, delta is what I look for in life ("experience" maybe even better than "know").

It doesn't seem an accident to me that some of your "delta strategies" are put in a negative form. In theory, it could seem strange, because if delta is something positive (more knowledge, more difference), how can you obtain through a negative action? But it's not so. Let me cite as an example the game of go, the best metaphor of life I know. In this game, a group of stones of yours is alive if you've created some liberties, i.e. some spots that your opponent can't occupy. Avoid your opponent to occupy all the spots surrounding you = avoid mainstream media to occupy all your environment. You can't open doors to more knowledge if you let "the enemy" close all your doors. Don't let them win. So, it's not strange that, to produce something positive (delta), you have sometimes to go for "don't" more than "do".

Your strategies are excellent, and they are effective, judging from your always stimulating and never banal blog.

> What would you think your strategies would be?

Play good games (many different kinds of good games) against strong opponents (many different kinds of strong opponents): this way, to win you will have to change your mind every time. BTW, designing games is a game too (1).

(1) "Men are never more ingenious than in inventing games." (G.W. Leibniz)
And when the man who tells it is the 3rd most intelligent man in the history:
http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm#TableII
... ;)

milivella [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

> blogoscoped.com/discussion/

Have you written this (brilliant!) page stimulated by a specific event, or did it spontaneously come out of your mind?

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

With that page I wanted to avoid trying to use real-life references, say the name of a specific person or topic, which could be distracting – real-life references often trigger our preconceived ideas about "what this thing means" and then may make us unnecessarily defensive.* However there are many real-life events that come to mind, almost anything that is discussed by our "general popular overview providers" (you probably know which term I wanted to avoid with that phrase). The topic of book burning used as example is sufficiently non-controversial so that I was hoping it does not trigger one to "shut down" before at least hearing the point (after hearing the point, criticism is of course useful). As for the general theory itself, in a way it's only a visualization of ideas put forth by people like Noam Chomsky and others...

*Imagine that when two people have different ideas about "what this thing means" and then they oppose each other in a discussion but actually aren't apart in their goals! For one person, say politician "Fred X. Doe" may represent "straight-forwardness, heroism" and to another person "Fred X. Doe" may represent "liar, disaster to environment". Simply because of their upbringing, their school, their neighborhood, their TV channels and magazines and all the things they were exposed to which taught them of "Fred X. Doe", but in completely different ways. Now when these two people get together, what happens when the first says "I like Fred X. Doe and wish he'd play a more important role"? Then the other will *hear* the first person saying: "I like liars and hope that our environment will be destroyed."

milivella [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

> With that page I wanted to avoid trying to use real-life references

[cut]

Thanks for the explanation.

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!